Debt Rattle June 16 2015
- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dorothea Lange Crossroads grocery store and filling station, Yakima, Washington, Sumac Park 1939 • Greece Accuses Europe Of Plotting Regime Change (AE
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle June 16 2015]Should one be given to paranoid conspiracy theories, as many are, it would certainly seem likely such theory is at work. Taking the EU and its subset EMU as developing one of the world’s largest, if not the largest, and wealthiest markets, having a well functioning social safety policy in place and firmly ensconced in the modern traditions, that an ideological seed was implanted to cause it to implode. Who benefits? Why? How? and What can be done to derail those who are behind and those who support that drive to destroy what has been so carefully built from tradition and experience. Recent history has shown these forces at work in Chile, South and Central Latin America, in Indonesia, for Japan and the Asian Tiger Economies, Russia emerging from the end of CCCP, the ill-stared PIIGS, and now threatening the balance of EMU and the EU itself in destroying the very glue that holds any group together – their medium of exchange and economic production. Why such focus on precisely what destroys economies? Cui bono?
Of COURSE the Big Money is “plotting regime change”; 100% of world history predicts assassination, very soon. Which is why way back there I was talking about the necessity of the Tsirpas government consolidating control and support of the Greek military. Boy, I hope they have, NOW. Ilargi, any indications of that in European gossip?
This guy has actually stuck his neck way out; though I’m sure most of his colleagues think he is writing a humor column:
If any part of that proves true, there might be “game changer” stuff in the not-near-but-not-distant future.
Oddly, we have heard that the CIA was involved in the setup of the Euro-concept in the 1950’s. So why would the world’s predominant currency, and Union of States use taxpayer money to actively create a competing and replacement currency and Union, then work tirelessly for years to insure it happens over the voting disapproval of the Euro citizens?
Yes, if you use law to outlaw coal, for whatever reason, you then will have a market with all sellers and no buyers. This will lead to a near-100% writeoff of any value represented in coal investments, therefore the implosion of those pensions and funds, unlikely the offset even by a rise in gas or other competitors. It’s a dead loss, and including all the coal jobs, countries, and tax base, as well as the pension, insurance pools, and funds. That’s what happens when you mothball a Trillion-dollar 200-year-old infrastructure.
And also a good example of what happens when government gets involved in things. They don’t evolve slowly, allowing transitions, but have sudden dislocations with pre-approved winners and losers. Sometimes this may be necessary, in a crisis for example, but is still massively expensive and complete loss for society. That’s what happens when you have resources, benefits, technology available to you, or previously available, and you simply choose not to use them. It hurts. A lot.
“Life is tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid.” –John Wayne…Unless of course you use law to run the price down, to buy it all up at 2c on the dollar, then reverse the law to make coal legal again. That’d be smart.
Diablo,
What you say makes, to me at least, a lot of sense. There must be reason behind the current madness. Oh, and let’s not forget to remove any inconvenient data:
“U.S. Continuous Average Temperature Index – Discontinued”
Nassim – yes, we must always pay attention to the times when government cancels something they’ve been doing for a long time. They’ve usually got something up their sleeve, something to hide.
Of course, I’ve noticed a tremendous difference in temperature (winter and summer) where I live – much, much hotter and drier – and I’ve lived here all my life. Definitely not cooling here!
There is little doubt that more rainfall is falling in North Africa compared to 40 years ago – and it is cooler. My parents returned to Egypt after many years and found it quite noticeable. Doubtless, CO2 has an effect on climate, but not always in the ways they want us to think:
“Science study links greenhouse gases to African rainfall ”
Certainly weather seems to be changing from its 100-year norms, and not localized but all over. Question is what is causing the change? CO2 thesis is looking less promising lately, on the anniversary of ABC reporting that by 2015 NYC would be underwater. https://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33435
Whew — narrowly averted disaster! Just kidding!Not to say it can’t happen, but climate is by definition a LONG event, which tends to more local cycles. The CO2 thesis–or the pop version of it–depended on scaring the pants off non-science types by erasing the Medieval Ice Age and then claiming a straight-line rise in temperatures leading to runaway effect, Armageddon, cats and dogs living together!! …you get the idea. This was easy to question, as such an effect has NEVER happened on earth, and it has been very, VERY hot at times (like the 1930s), and also very cold. Even with a more nuanced approach that climate would get pretty hot and the seas would in fact rise, it would still take time in the range of 100 years, enough to adjust habits and infrastructure. Expensively, annoyingly, but plenty of time.
However, as you point out above, there hasn’t been a straight-line effect. No sooner was Global Warming popularized than the temperatures plateaued for 15 years, and now may even be normalizing. This could be a local effect, the way trending stocks halt before breaking up through a big round number, or it may be headed down, it’s hard to say. The one thing that we CAN say, however, is that the CO2-thesis for the temperature rise seems to be in trouble. If it were CO2, then by the theory, it should rise more or less steadily. 15 years is a pretty generous time to wait for confirmation, and it hasn’t been following the predictions–which is the only thing that proves a theory. So if CO2 doesn’t cause temperatures to rise in a straight line, what did we miss? Is it man-made CO2? Is it even CO2? If it’s CO2 why do the other planets in the solar system appear to be warming as well? What else could it be? How do we find out?
Well, one way we WON’T find out is by erasing the inconvenient data set, then replacing with an adjusted data set that has been chosen to fit the theory that doesn’t seem to be working. That’s not science.
But what IS happening with the weather: hot some places, cold others, reversing suddenly, having more extremes but without more rise in temperatures, well, I’m not sure we know yet.
But we won’t find out by erasing the data.
Pro Tip: Don’t believe ABC News. They’re wrong in everything they report, and this is no exception. Consider it paid advertising for expensive agendas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.